Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1002012
Original file (ND1002012.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-OSSA, USN
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20100812
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MILPERSMAN

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
 Inactive:         US N R (DEP)        20010328 - 20010429     Active:  

Period of Service Under Review:
 Date of Current Enlistment: 20010430     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Extension
Date of Discharge: 20020722      Highest Rank/Rate: OSSA
Length of Service : Y ear ( s ) M onth ( s ) 23 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 52
Evaluation M arks:         Performance: 3.0 ( 1 )      Behavior: 2.0 ( 1 )        OTA: 2.83

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):     

Periods of UA /C ONF :

NJP:     SCM:     SPCM:    C C :

Retention Warning Counseling:

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

          Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, should read: “ NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE MEDAL ”
         “ MISCONDUCT ”
          Block 12a, Date Entered AD This Period, should read: “01 04 30”
         Block 12c, Net Active Service This Period, should read: “01 02 23”
The NDRB will recommend to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command, that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:
         DD 214:           Service/Medical Record:           Other Records:  
Related to Post-Service Period:
         Employment:               Finances:                 Education/Training:     
         Health/Medical Records:           Rehabilitation/Treatment:                 Criminal Records:       
         Personal Documentation:           Community Service:                References:     
         Department of VA letter:                  Other Documentation:    
                  Additional Statements:
          From Applicant:           From/To Representation:           From/To Congress member:        


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

 1.       The Applicant contends that based on an evaluation report signed on 23 July 2002 that states he was an asset to the Operation s Specialist community, his service was h onorable .

Decision

Date: 20 1 1 0926             Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
 By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .
Discussion

 The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of g overnment al affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Applicant’s record of service did not include any NAVPERS 1070/613 (Page 13) warnings, non-judicial punishments, or trials by court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Milit ary Justice (UCMJ) . However, documentation was found in the Applicant’s record of service indicating he violated Article 112a (Wrongful use, possession of a controlled substance) of the UCMJ. The Applicant did not require a drug waiver to enter the Navy. Based on the Article 112a violation, processing for administ rative separation is mandatory. The NDRB did not have the Applicant’s administrative separation package to determine whether the Applicant waived rights to consult with a qualified counsel, submit a written statement, and request an administrative board or a General Court-Martial Convening Authority review .

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends that based on an evaluation report signed on 23 July 2002 that states he was an asset to the Operation s Specialist community, his service was h onorable . Despite a service member’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the Navy to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 112a of the UCMJ is such an offense. Wrongful use or possession of a controlled substance can result in an unfavorable characterization of service, or at a maximum, a punitive discharge and possible confinement if adjudicated and awarded as part of a sentence by a special or general court-martial. The Applicant violated Article 112a of the UCMJ . However, his command did not pursue a punitive discharge but opted instead for the more lenient administrative discharge. The NDRB found the characterization of the Applicant ’ s discharge was equitable and consistent with the characterization given others in similar circumstances. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s s ummary of s ervice, r ecord e ntries and d ischarge p rocess, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , for additional information.

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A . The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 33, effective 16 July 2001 until
21 August 2002, Article 1910-146, SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - DRUG ABUSE.

 B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .



ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

 Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.
Employment/Educational Opportunities : The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

 Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.
Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons. Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

 Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.
Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

 Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
 Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1101886

    Original file (ND1101886.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Relief denied.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entriesand discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500909

    Original file (ND1500909.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT (SERIOUS OFFENSE). ” Additional Reviews : After a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401685

    Original file (ND1401685.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2013_Navy | ND1301828

    Original file (ND1301828.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of ServicePrior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20090304 - 20100112Active:Pre-Service Drug Waiver: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20100113Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20111021Highest Rank/Rate:OSSALength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)09 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 47EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(1)Behavior:3.0(1)OTA: 3.00Awards and Decorations...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100239

    Original file (ND1100239.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)20060208 - 20060704Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20060705Age at Enlistment: Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20070713Highest Rank/Rate: OSSNLength of Service: Year(s)Month(s)08 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT: 78EvaluationMarks:Performance:3.0(2)Behavior:1.0(2)OTA: 2.50Awards and Decorations (per DD 214):Periods...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0900448

    Original file (ND0900448.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post-service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct was not sufficient enough to warrant an upgrade. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801483

    Original file (ND0801483.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant has provided documentation of employment, credit score, police record check, character references, and educational accomplishments in support of his request for an upgrade.While the Board applauds the Applicant’s post service efforts, the Board determined the evidence of post-service conduct did not to mitigate the misconduct which precipitated the discharge. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801442

    Original file (ND0801442.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge.The Applicant’s concerning his wife and children notwithstanding, he did notprovide any additional personal information, supporting documentation of post service accomplishments or character witness statements...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801590

    Original file (ND0801590.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive: USNR (DEP)20000925 - 20010807Active: Period of Service Under Review: Date of Enlistment: 20010808Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040521Length of Service:Years Months14 DaysEducation Level:Age at Enlistment:AFQT:NFIRHighest Rank/Rate:OSSNEvaluationMarks:Performance:NFIR Behavior:NFIROTA: NFIRAwards and Decorations (per DD 214):Rifle , Pistol...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001661

    Original file (ND1001661.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT Applicant’s Issues 1.The Applicant desires to become eligible for the GI Bill.2. By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the...